MD Quality

Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 - 22:40:23 GMT

  • Next message: Joseph Maurer: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Maybe I just missed it, or it will be posted later, but I wrote this
    earlier. Since it has not posted on the email as of yet, I thought I might
    change a
    few things about it that may have appeared as an attack on one individual's

    thinking here.

    I hope that nothing I offer appears to be personal attacks; it truly is an
    attack on the idea as opposed to an attack on the person.

    >From "Zen"

    "And what is written well and what is written badly...need we ask Lysias or

    any other poet or orator who ever wrote or will write either a political or

    other work, in meter or out of meter, poet or prose writer, to teach us this

    <B>What is good, PhE6drus, and what is not good...need we ask anyone to te
    us these things? </B>

    It is what he was saying months before in the classroom in Montana, a
    message Plato and every dialectician since him had missed, since they all so
    ught to
    define the Good in its intellectual relation to things. But what he sees now
    is how far he has come from that. He is doing the same bad things himself.
    His original goal was to keep Quality undefined, but in the process of batt
     against the dialecticians he has made statements, and each statement has
    been a brick in a wall of definition he himself has been building around
    Quality. Any attempt to develop an organized reason around an undefined qua
    defeats its own purpose. The organization of the reason itself defeats the
    quality. Everything he has been doing has been a fool's mission to begin wi

    . . . A person who knows how to fix motorcycles...with less
    likely to run short of friends than one who doesn't. And they aren't going t
    see him as some kind of object either. Quality destroys objectivity every ti
    Or if he takes whatever dull job he's stuck with...and they are all, sooner

    or later, dull...and, just to keep himself amused, starts to look for option
    of Quality, and secretly pursues these options, just for their own sake, th
     making an art out of what he is doing, he's likely to discover that he
    becomes a much more interesting person and much less of an object to the pe
    around him because his Quality decisions change him too. And not only the j
    and him, but others too because the Quality tends to fan out like waves. Th
    Quality job he didn't think anyone was going to see is seen, and the person

    who sees it feels a little better because of it, and is likely to pass that

    feeling on to others, and in that way the Quality tends to keep on going.

    <B>My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of the
    world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and that's all.

     God, I don't want to have any more enthusiasm for big programs full of
    social planning for big masses of people that leave individual Quality out.
    can be left alone for a while. There's a place for them but they've got to
    be built on a foundation of Quality within the individuals involved. We've h
    that individual Quality in the past, exploited it as a natural resource
    without knowing it, and now it's just about depleted. Everyone's just about
     out of
     gumption. And I think it's about time to return to the rebuilding of this
    American resource...individual worth. There are political reactionaries who'
    been saying something close to this for years. I'm not one of them, but to
    the extent they're talking about real individual worth and not just an excu
    for giving more money to the rich, they're right. We do need a return to
    individual integrity, self-reliance and old-fashioned gumption. We really d
    o. I
    hope that in this Chautauqua some directions have been pointed to." </end

    If we can't come up with a better philosophy than Quality -- that can bette
    explain how "any improvement of the world will be done," then what are our
    efforts all about? Is it so we can claim some trophy for finding the answer
    some queston? Is it at all possible that we can come up with a theory that
    better explain than all the theories that have gone before us, that can als
    be so accepted that it changes the whole nature of the way the world views
    things? -- what are the odds?

    History has past, and the future is not here yet. If we are to improve the
    future, we need to improve the present; this actual space 'In' time we occup

    Quality can be created in the moment it happens, or it can be found in the
    moment it happens, or it can be thrust upon us by a profound thought that co
     to us in the night without any effort at all; without even contemplating it
    All it takes is accepting it as it is. It doesn't require an explanation,
    and doesn't require a definition; we know it when we see it, and it can't b
    wrong because it is our own personal Quality that helps us to make sense of

    life within, or the chaos without. It doesn't need description, or instruct
    all it needs is us to take our doubts out of its way.

    Everything that Pirsig built is through this Quality that Phaedrus found.
    The fact this profound discovery came from an individual that society and
    science saw fit to shock back into the Mythos of the day should tell us som
    about society and science, just as drugging children in school so they will

    conform to the rules society places on them to attend school, as opposed to

    conform the school system to conform to these, our highest Quality hopes for
     future. My personal opinion on this is the children can teach the teacher
    something about Quality, and we old farts who have had our prjudices toward
     form of Quality disturbing our safe and comfortable littles lives that we
    cannot see what is right in front of our eyes; the children can, if we let

    It might also tell us a little about reason as well. Was what Phaedrus
    sought reasonable? Could we have possibly known, or would we have even cons
    what he was offering if we hadn't read his whole Chautauqua? Can it be as
    Shaw saw it;

    <B>"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
    persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
    depends on the unreasonable man."</B>

    There is something inherently wrong with the idea that we cannot find
    Quality without having it defined for us. It is not the definition of Qualit
    y that
    holds us back, but the predetermined bias toward our own static myths that
    fear letting go of.

    What more is there to Quality? It is, not only before, in between, and the
    product of everything we do, it is so simple, and so real, that all we have
    do is experience it, or even imagine it to recognize it.

    Philosophy can change the world, but only Quality philosophy.

    What is the question mark in Quality? Of all the dialectic terms we have
    managed over all the years we have asked all the quesitons we have asked, wh
    term more fits the missing link in our metaphysics to bring sense to all the
    wrangling of dialectic terms?

    The MOQ levels are the map; Quality is the guide. This is the simplicity I
    see in this. If it is something other than this simplistic, but grand Dynami
    Quality, I can't see what it could be.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 09 2004 - 20:20:04 GMT